India Case Law

PARAMESHWARI versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS

The High Court's reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone by enhancing compensation was unlawful; victim compensation is restitutory and cannot substitute punitive sentence; the convictions under Sections 307, 326 and 324 IPC and the sentence of three years RI with fine as imposed by the Trial Court (and affirmed by the District Sessions Fast Track Mahila Court) are affirmed, and the High Court judgment modifying the sentence is set aside; Private Respondents must surrender and serve the remaining sentence after adjusting time already undergone.

Source excerpt

• Reduction of sentence
• Victim compensation as restitution not substitute for punishment
• Imposition of sentence and sentencing factors
• Proportionality in sentencing
• Aggravating and mitigating factors
• Enhancement of fine/compensation

Read case analysis

ROHIT JANGDE versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

__CONTENT_FILTERED__

Source excerpt

• Content Filtered

Read case analysis

ZUBAIR. P versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Rule 6.2(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII must be read with the SET prospectus and relevant government clarification; because SET is conducted subject-wise (Paper II tests PG subject specialization), the statutory requirement for SET for appointment as HSST must correspond to the subject of appointment; possession of SET in an unrelated subject does not satisfy the eligibility; appellant lacked SET in Economics and also did not have the ten years' approved high-school service required for exemption under Rule 10(4), hence he was not eligible and the High Court rightly directed consideration of respo…

Source excerpt

• State eligibility test (set) qualification
• Appointment as higher secondary school teacher (hsst)
• Exemption under rule 10(4) of chapter xxxii
• Interpretation of kerala education rules

Read case analysis

MANOJ versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

MANOJ versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Source excerpt

Read case analysis

THE TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION versus ANNA NAGAR CRICKET CLUB & ANR. ETC.

The directions in S. Nithya are confined to athletics governance and are not applicable to the facts concerning cricket where the BCCI judgment governs; because the BCCI judgment and approved constitution do not prescribe the 75% eminent sportsperson membership or require district associations to replicate BCCI exactly, the High Court's reliance on S. Nithya to direct such reforms in the District Cricket Association was not sustainable; the High Court order is set aside to the extent indicated and the High Court is directed to dispose of pending writ appeals expeditiously to enable statutory…

Source excerpt

• Applicability of s. nithya judgments to sports bodies
• Applicability of bcci judgment and constitution to district cricket associations
• Governance and membership of district sports associations
• Elections and voters list issues

Read case analysis

HARBINDER SINGH SEKHON & ORS. versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

The CLU dated 13.12.2021 was unlawful because the site was zoned rural agricultural under the operative Master Plan and the PRTPD Act prescribes that any alteration of land use must follow the statutory procedure (ss.70,75,76); the Planning Board's approval on 05.01.2022 could not retrospectively cure the jurisdictional defect or operate as an amendment of the Master Plan without compliance with the statutory revision process; siting norms and prior environmental clearance requirements were not satisfied; consequently the CLU and related pollution consent (insofar as based on it) were quashed…

Source excerpt

• Change of land use
• Master plan alteration and revision
• Siting norms and buffers
• Environmental clearance (eia notification, 2006)
• Industrial categorisation
• Precautionary principle

Read case analysis

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS. versus SGT GIRISH KUMAR AND ORS. ETC.

Where this Court in Ram Avtar settled the law and the Union of India, by policy and subsequent order, accepted arrears of disability pension payable from specified cut-off dates, claims for arrears could not be curtailed to three years by invoking limitation, delay or laches; once disability pension is found due it must be paid from the date it became due and restricting arrears to three years would unlawfully deprive beneficiaries and infringe Article 300A.

Source excerpt

• Disability pension
• Arrears of disability pension
• Limitation
• Broad banding of disability pension
• Article 300a

Read case analysis

R. SAVITHRI NAIDU versus M/S THE COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER

The Appellant purchased the EP Schedule Property after the arbitral proceedings had been instituted (1999) and after the arbitral award (11.06.2001); therefore she is a transferee pendente lite/post-arbitral award purchaser and is barred by Order XXI Rule 102, CPC from resisting execution. The sale could not be shown to be without notice (tripartite agreement not produced), and thus the executing courts were correct to dismiss the Appellant's claim and to allow attachment for realization of the arbitral award.

Source excerpt

• Order xxi rule 102, cpc
• Transferee pendente lite
• Execution of arbitral award
• Lis pendens (section 52, transfer of property act)
• Sale pendente lite
• Third-party claim under order xxi

Read case analysis

HEMLATA EKNATH PISE versus SHUBHAM BAHU-UDDESHIYA SANSTHA WADDHAMNA & ORS.

The High Court erred in remanding the writ petition to the Tribunal based on its consideration of only a single point without addressing other significant issues; the impugned orders were set aside and the writ petition remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration of all claims and defenses.

Source excerpt

• Reinstatement
• Natural justice
• Remand for fresh consideration
• Reasoned decision

Read case analysis

K. RAJAIAH versus THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

The Inquiry Officer’s finding that the Medical Certificate (Ex. P-7) was not genuine was perverse and not supported by credible evidence because (i) the doctor admitted treating the appellant, owning the letterhead and the rubber stamp, (ii) disputed and undisputed signatures were not properly compared and were only broadly similar, and (iii) the Inquiry Officer ought to have referred the disputed handwriting to an expert before concluding fabrication. Consequently the forgery charge was not proved, the disciplinary findings could not be sustained, and the dismissal was set aside with directi…

Source excerpt

• Disciplinary proceedings
• Forgery
• Handwriting verification
• Reinstatement
• Penalty assessment

Read case analysis